schopenhauer1

No one is denying Hellenistic forms of Judaism existed, only the influence it had on Judea and Galilee regions as opposed to the diaspora. No one disp...

Enoch is an interesting odd insertion in that era. It probably shouldn't be diminished that this aspect had influence on certain Jewish groups like th...

I think you are misplacing Logos.. How it is used in John seems very much akin to Philo of Alexandria's usage.. It was more influenced from that varia...

Ah, so no reply. Good one.

But if it were even my argument. My whole point to him was that he keeps pretending I am talking about the nonexistent nobodies when I am just talking...

I know and I wonder if you don't keep harping on this (non) point that I am not making as you know I have been careful not to make it. As if to just b...

And that was a response to the idea that there was some "loss" to "someone" going on- that there is no "downside" for any "one", only a projection of ...

Right, so the disagreement is always with whether causing harm is immoral. It is never because of "unhad" anything for the "no one" that exists. And s...

I am sorry Un, but I don't really get what point you are trying to make. Are we not in agreement that another life can come about if a parent decides ...

Your just arguing to argue now. Piss off if you can't be consructive. I've given you plenty here to loock back at. You keep wanting to drop my earlies...

I am saying exactly that actually. You seem to not care what I am saying, which is evident. The only thing that matters here is the parent not creatin...

To want suffering to exist because you want to see people struggle and overcome hardships, can be construed as mildly sadistic. Just because it happen...

I am not saying that.. For the last time. It is simply wrong to create collateral damage unnecessarily unto someone. That is what I am saying. Not the...

Do you think there is such thing as a mild form of sadism? If I kidnap you to work my garden and you eventually find some goods and bads with it, and ...

Unhad goods matters not if no one exists to be deprived. Alleviation of bad matters not either.. because there was no one to be alleviated. All that m...

Reject harm as evil, or reject that we are at all harmed? Also, I am glad we agree on the facts.. @"DA671" keeps going in circles to make it so that w...

This is like "how many angels fit at the head of a pin". I don't care about the "benefits of unhad alleviation" just that the parent isn't choosing to...

You, the parent, aren't creating (unnecessarily) someone else who is harmed.

What does "ultimate sense" here mean.. You sound like a god damn messiah trying to spread the word.. You aren't, there isn't. I am saying at the end o...

See here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/657460

Why is the suffering "necessary" to take place in the first place? As the parent, you decided that their suffering is "necessary". This isn't a weird ...

I'm going to stop you right here, because it actually doesn't. There are some things due to the special nature of procreation vs. already existing peo...

Creating suffering for the sake of happiness is, and doing so unnecessarily.. That is moral? So at least you are not weasling here.. You get my point,...

No no.. I'm going to call you weasel if you keep weasling like this.. Look at what I said again instead of what you would like to see: The most import...

Ah, so we are back to you not agreeing to the facts on the ground.. Okay here we go back to the fuckn drawing board. It's not "problematic" because in...

See my above comment because this is just more strawman.

Don't be stupid. No one "needs" to realize it. Remember, this is about the parents, not "non existent people". The parent is not creating collateral d...

Just because a "blessing" can be created, doesn't mean doing the harm was justified, if it was unnecessary to start.

Stop it.. Born into a volcano is okay because everything prior to the volcano that person didn't exist :roll:. Dumbass notion. Only in the case of NOT...

Ah I see you needed to hang your hat on that one... Harm is necessary but someone else being born from YOUR decision is not. You know this, yet you ph...

Yeah the "go kill yourself" argument against antinatlism is tiresome and should just be ignored at this point.

But it is never just that!! It is entailed with forcing suffering upon someone. This is smugly paternalistic if harm is ignored for X reason (joy). It...

Because there is no obligation to create "opportunity", "good", "joy". There is only obligation to prevent unnecessary harm when one can.

Why go any further? I'm serious. Why can't circumstances change depending on the situation? This is a ridiculous characterization of how my argument i...

Collateral damage means that, despite creating joy, X suffering is entailed. Thus, we are never talking a paradise situation, or simply "Oh, I am crea...

You know what collateral damage is right? I'm not just saying "harm" in our discussion, and for a reason.

Haha, are you just doing this to be funny? It's about the parent. The obligation to not create unnecessary collateral damage if you can prevent it. Yo...

That is totally fuckn ridiculous. So, if someone is going to be born into horrendous conditions, because the kid is not "existent" yet, none of this m...

Ah, so you haven't been paying attention to what I mean by unnecessary suffering.. I should just say to do the work and look back to what I said but I...

Answer this right here: Is this a moral OBLIGATION? Not just supererogatory. You state it that one is entailed in the other. That is just not the case...

I never claimed that.. I have said previously (look back!) that if it was always the case people were procreated into paradise, there wouldn't be a mo...

Unnecessary to create it in the first place. You are either creating collateral damage for someone else or you are not. I am saying the moral choice i...

Sure, if someone spits out a kid in the mouth of a volcano, and makes the decision that this is okay..it's not making a decision on "behalf" of anythi...

Um, okay. Don't think your objections mean much here. These are the states of affairs. The parent's are making a decision based on them.. If you need ...

Yeah whatever.. So we are on the same page so far.. It is a problem regarding the PARENT's decision. Good, good... ok, we made it to the first step. N...

You would say that, being that you keep MISSING THE FUCKN POINT! I have to go over this in piecemeal I guess and spoon feed this... Okay, FIRST and ve...

UGGHHGGHG I am very frustrated that you are not getting this. See, I would be okay, if you understood my point and then we disagreed from here, but yo...

Rubbish statement because it ain't true :wink:. But you didn't. That is most your argument (no one exists to be deprived of the benefit of the non-har...

I'm going to stop this here because THIS is where you keep tripping up on my argument. The asymmetry is about states of affairs. It is the case that n...

I think this is all encapsulated best in my argument from a previous thread: There is a state of affairs where someone actually experiences the collat...